What is unconstitutional about what Trump proposes?

[deltex1]

Emphasis on what he proposes...not what a bunch of shriek ears say he proposes.


Trump's ban on Muslim entry to the U.S. would be unconstitutional, experts say: Donald Trump in the news

He implied he would not allow American citizens who happen to be Muslim reentry into the country

That part would be unconstitutional

Stopping any Muslim that is not an American citizen would not be unconstitutional since our constitutional protections do not extend to them

And again, I call EXTREME BULLSHIT! Show us where. You are making it out of thin air. Propagandist extraordinaire!

He did imply that

Donald Trump calls for ‘total and complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering U.S.

But when asked by The Hill whether Trump’s theoretical ban “would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad,” spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied, “Mr. Trump says, ‘Everyone.’”


So tell me where is the bullshit?

If that's true Hope is an asshole.

 

[Papageorgio]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

Trump's success with righties shows that the concept of leadership does not involve giving Americans what they want, rather it involves seeing that government gives the people what they need.

Trump's platform is simply a sales pitch, not a platform that could be shoe-horned into policy

Lol! Every candidate does that. Obama made his sales pitch in 2008, didn't follow through on it. It's what politicians do.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You gotta love when the "Hope 'n Change" and "Yes We Can Crowd" starts harping on "messages".

 

[deltex1]

Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?

Maybe that's why Libtards are hung up on the religious discrimination thing.

 

[Timmy]

trumo said "Muslims ". He didn't qualify if by saying "from syria " or any hotspots .

He purposely said ALL.

Meaning a Muslim American wouldnt be allowed into the U.S. . That'd be pretty unconstitutional .

 

[Syriusly]

No.

Banning citizens of a country from entering- whether its from Iran or Cuba or North Korea is perfectly Constitutional

Banning persons based solely upon their religion is not.

Now- can you tell the difference between an Iranian and a Muslim?

You still are not grasping who Carter banned....hint: religion played a part...so did medical necessity

Feel free to fill me in.

I can see that there is embargo on issuing visa's to Iranians but nothing about religion.

It is the same, the majority of Iranians were Muslim. Call it what it is. If it was okay then, why is it not okay now? At least be consistent.

Well I am calling it what it is- if the ban was on all Iranians- it would have banned both Muslim and Christian Iranians- which is perfectly constitutional.

If our good Conservatives want ensure that no Iraqi Christians can escape Muslim persecution in Iraq, then just pass a ban on any entry by Iraqi's.

98% of Iranians are Muslim, so it was a ban on Muslims. It is what it was.

Again, at least be honest and quit making excuses. Was Clinton wrong in banning Iranians that were 98% Muslim? I am asking for honesty, no word twisting.

No more than a ban on Italians would be a ban on Christians- or frankly than a ban on Israeli's would be a ban on Jews.

I am beginning to suspect you really don't understand what 'honesty' means.

Here let me help you:

A ban on Iranians means that all Iranians- Muslim, Christian, atheist etc- all are banned.
But Muslims from Iraq or Afghanistan- Iran's neighbors are not.

A ban on Israelis means that all Israeli's are banned- Jewish, Muslim, Christians- are all banned.
But Jews from Turkey are not banned.

 

[toxicmedia]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

Trump's success with righties shows that the concept of leadership does not involve giving Americans what they want, rather it involves seeing that government gives the people what they need.

Trump's platform is simply a sales pitch, not a platform that could be shoe-horned into policy

Lol! Every candidate does that. Obama made his sales pitch in 2008, didn't follow through on it. It's what politicians do.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Obama's main platform items included:

1. Getting unemployment down to 8% or less by 2012.
2. Creating a Healthcare law.
3. Closing Gitmo.
4. Getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump's platform is exceedingly vague.

1. Build an impenetrable wall along the border
2. Seal the borders
3. ?????

what is his "platform anyway?

And did you notice how Obama came through with 3 of the 5 major platform items?

Being unable to close Gitmo was because the conservatives stopped it.

Afghanistan, he did what conservatives wanted, to stay there and fight

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

If you wish to have a group of refugees undergo the same legalization process that other overseas immigrants must wait and go through, to conclude if they may be granted entry based on what the process reveals, then it's not discrimination based on religion at all.

 

[Syriusly]

Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?

Maybe that's why Libtards are hung up on the religious discrimination thing.

Well "Muslim" describes a persons religion- not what part of the world they are from.

Is this just a general Conservative ignorance about geography and religion here?

 

[deltex1]

Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?

Maybe that's why Libtards are hung up on the religious discrimination thing.

Well "Muslim" describes a persons religion- not what part of the world they are from.

Is this just a general Conservative ignorance about geography and religion here?

No shit Dick...my point is there is nothing else TO call them. Gfy

 

[deltex1]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

Trump's success with righties shows that the concept of leadership does not involve giving Americans what they want, rather it involves seeing that government gives the people what they need.

Trump's platform is simply a sales pitch, not a platform that could be shoe-horned into policy

Lol! Every candidate does that. Obama made his sales pitch in 2008, didn't follow through on it. It's what politicians do.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Obama's main platform items included:

1. Getting unemployment down to 8% or less by 2012.
2. Creating a Healthcare law.
3. Closing Gitmo.
4. Getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump's platform is exceedingly vague.

1. Build an impenetrable wall along the border
2. Seal the borders
3. ?????

what is his "platform anyway?

And did you notice how Obama came through with 3 of the 5 major platform items?

Being unable to close Gitmo was because the conservatives stopped it.

Afghanistan, he did what conservatives wanted, to stay there and fight

Obabble is batting zero.

 

[Syriusly]

Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?

Maybe that's why Libtards are hung up on the religious discrimination thing.

Well "Muslim" describes a persons religion- not what part of the world they are from.

Is this just a general Conservative ignorance about geography and religion here?

No shit Dick...my point is there is nothing else TO call them. Gfy

What you said:

"Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?"

Why would you call a Christian from Pakistan a Muslim?

 

[deltex1]

Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?

Maybe that's why Libtards are hung up on the religious discrimination thing.

Well "Muslim" describes a persons religion- not what part of the world they are from.

Is this just a general Conservative ignorance about geography and religion here?

No shit Dick...my point is there is nothing else TO call them. Gfy

What you said:

"Other than "Muslim" what generic term can you apply to a person from a Muslim region?"

Why would you call a Christian from Pakistan a Muslim?

I would call him a fucking Pakistani.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

They'll do that pretzel logic thing where they'll say targeting certain people isnt discrimination. Followed by questions like "Whats discriminatory about it?".

Actually... granting illegals special privileges of achieving citizenship, over any other overseas immigrant that must endure the long process of achieving their legal right to become Americans as dictated under Federal Immigration law, would be deemed discriminatory.

 

[deltex1]

REUTERS ROLLING: TRUMP 35%, RUBIO 15.3%, CARSON 12.3%, CRUZ 10.2%

 

[Staidhup]

Trump is a disgrace, however with that said he is entitled to exercise his right of free speech. The majority of Americans do not feel confident that this pathetic administration will protect their safety and rights. Trump is capitalizing on this very fact and will continue to do so until his foot is fully lodged in his mouth.

 

[Toro]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

They'll do that pretzel logic thing where they'll say targeting certain people isnt discrimination. Followed by questions like "Whats discriminatory about it?".

Actually... granting illegals special privileges of achieving citizenship, over any other overseas immigrant that must endure the long process of achieving their legal right to become Americans as dictated under Federal Immigration law, would be deemed discriminatory.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Trump said he'd ban all Muslims, including Americans, from entering the country.

That's unconstitutional.

But the uneducated who support Trump don't seem to understand this very simple notion.

 

[Papageorgio]

You still are not grasping who Carter banned....hint: religion played a part...so did medical necessity

Feel free to fill me in.

I can see that there is embargo on issuing visa's to Iranians but nothing about religion.

It is the same, the majority of Iranians were Muslim. Call it what it is. If it was okay then, why is it not okay now? At least be consistent.

Well I am calling it what it is- if the ban was on all Iranians- it would have banned both Muslim and Christian Iranians- which is perfectly constitutional.

If our good Conservatives want ensure that no Iraqi Christians can escape Muslim persecution in Iraq, then just pass a ban on any entry by Iraqi's.

98% of Iranians are Muslim, so it was a ban on Muslims. It is what it was.

Again, at least be honest and quit making excuses. Was Clinton wrong in banning Iranians that were 98% Muslim? I am asking for honesty, no word twisting.

No more than a ban on Italians would be a ban on Christians- or frankly than a ban on Israeli's would be a ban on Jews.

I am beginning to suspect you really don't understand what 'honesty' means.

Here let me help you:

A ban on Iranians means that all Iranians- Muslim, Christian, atheist etc- all are banned.
But Muslims from Iraq or Afghanistan- Iran's neighbors are not.

A ban on Israelis means that all Israeli's are banned- Jewish, Muslim, Christians- are all banned.
But Jews from Turkey are not banned.

With all due respect. I like that you are being civil in this discussion and I appreciate the exchange of ideas.

When 98% of the people are one religion, who is the ban really on? It is on that religion.

Who in Iran was the issue with? The Ayatollah and the Muslims? Not the Christians, however the odds of a Christian from Iran to enter into the US is one in 50-75? Or less than 2%.

If you placed a curfew on a neighborhood that is 98% black, the ban isn't about the neighborhood is it? It's about race.

I don't see anything different between what Carter did and what Trump is purposing. I don't agree with either one of them. Wrong then, wrong now.

 

[Siete]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

They'll do that pretzel logic thing where they'll say targeting certain people isnt discrimination. Followed by questions like "Whats discriminatory about it?".

Actually... granting illegals special privileges of achieving citizenship, over any other overseas immigrant that must endure the long process of achieving their legal right to become Americans as dictated under Federal Immigration law, would be deemed discriminatory.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Trump said he'd ban all Muslims, including Americans, from entering the country.

That's unconstitutional.

But the uneducated who support Trump don't seem to understand this very simple notion.

they are either uneducated or have NO respect for the constitution. They have no respect for the Laws that made this country strong ... so they deem themselves "patriots"

One day they diss Obama for being unconstitutional the next day they laud Trump for being unconstitutional.

Trump can run his campaign any way he chooses. Walking on the constitution should automatically end a campaign.

end of story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Emphasis on what he proposes...not what a bunch of shriek ears say he proposes.


Trump's ban on Muslim entry to the U.S. would be unconstitutional, experts say: Donald Trump in the news

The Republican Congress, via Ryan and McConnell, has come out overwhelmingly against Trump's idiocy.

The constitutional issue? Separation of powers.